Brexit, for once some facts.

[Woosh]

What? You think pillaging African specialists from impoverished economies is a good thing? You're more comfortable with that and the neglect in training British talent.

Doctors like everyone else can freely choose to work where they like. You see that in digital nomads.

 

[Tony1951]

Doctors like everyone else can freely choose to work where they like. You see that in digital nomads.

Isn't it just another more modern form of colonial exploitation of poorer countries?

'Let's economise on the costs of training UK doctors and import them from Ghana, Nigeria and the Congo/ They can pay the costs of training our new crop of doctors,' Rubs hands and fingers a pile of bank notes.

 

[Woosh]

If you believe a free world is a better world, you would not be so hostile to freedom of movement.

 

[Tony1951]

If you believe a free world is a better world, you would not be so hostile to freedom of movement.

I have explained my reasons in detail above.

I note that you made no attempt to address the issues I raised. None.


Your reference to freedom of movement is rather bizarre. This is a concept which applies only inside the EU Shengen area of similar high value economies
. It does not apply outside. It is not legal for people to simply turn up from Africa on a plane in Paris. They all enter illegally who come without a proper visa.

No high value economy in the world allows just anyone to turn up and settle.

This being said, I am at a loss as to why you raise it as if 'freedom of movement' was the norm, or even widely practised.

 

[Woosh]

Take the case of the doctors that Jonathan mentioned. They may have studied here or have only worked here. We don't know their history. As far as our NHS recruits from overseas is concerned, I don't see any problem. Countries don't hold their citizens slaves. That doctor that our NHS recruits may have grown up in Ghana but his education and upbringing was paid for by his parents. He is free to choose how to live his life.

 

[Woosh]

This could happen here if our next government went for mass deportation.
I think illegal border crossings should be punished with heavy fines instead of treatments like this.

 

[MikelBikel]

Post from Connor Tomlinson

A new iron curtain of censorship now encircles the UK and Europe, imposed by politicians purporting to defend democracy. America can help lift it. Censorship...

youtube.com

 

[Woosh]

I have explained my reasons in detail above.

I note that you made no attempt to address the issues I raised. None.

It's a big subject, I needed time to think about it.

It is far too early to pass judgement on the governance of Reform yet. You can not decide in a few months whether a political body will be more or less successful than others who had decades to prove their worth.

Reform has started fighting among themselves. Why do you think that is? Egos? Lack of programs and ideas? Cult of one leader? Can't understand how the civil service works when they ask for expense receipts or budget preparations?

What I am interested in is that UK government policy actively engages with the problems of the people around me. People of what was once called, the working class' have seen decades long loss of living standards, and decent working conditions. The costs of their housing has more than doubled in real terms in the time since I bought my first home. Their wages have been suppressed by mass migration of lower skilled people from afar. The numbers of migrants have been huge and of a never before seen scale.

I disagree. Their wages have gone up but eaten by inflation, especially house price.
On skill levels, immigrants have to compete while being disadvantaged by their relative lack of fluency in English, poorer communications, poorer connectivity within their industry. You can see that clearly in London.

People in the UK population who are unskilled or semi-skilled have been drastically affected by unskilled migration. The numbers are large and the mindset is to accept any work, under any conditions at any price.

Let's not be hypocritical about it. We all benefit from their accepting working the low paid wages. Their presence is the reason that the sick among locally born are not forced to work in their places.

People used to say, 'Ah, but we always had migrants'. Yes - but they were in numbers and in proportion to the population that was absolutely tiny by comparison to what we see now and for the last thirty some years.

What about the ever growing number of Brits living and working abroad?
I have only worked in 2 countries. My children have worked in a dozen.
What you see is the consequences of greater mobility, something that we should be pleased about.

 

[Woosh]

For these reasons I utterly oppose namby pamby dogooderism of the sort that YOU evince at every post on the subject. People coming from safe countries such as France (which has a quarter of the population density of England and is a free, modern and civilised country) HAVE NO RIGHT AT ALL, TO TURN UP ON A BEACH HERE AND DEMAND ASYLUM.

Let's see if Farage becomes PM at the next election, he would deploy his plan for mass deportations.

Here is the assessment from ChatGPT on his plan:

1. What the UK could try to do

• Withdraw from the Refugee Convention → would remove obligation to process asylum claims, but requires 1 year’s notice and would trigger international backlash.
• Leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) → 6 months’ notice; would mean no Strasbourg oversight, but likely damage UK’s standing in Europe and risk trade/security agreements.

Starmer's plan for one in, one out is not workable either. The plan allows 50 per week, 2500 per annum. There is not enough deterrent.
I reckon the best solution is to organise long term structures for proper integragrion for about 50,000 asylum seekers a year, education, health care, job placement, family reunifications.

• Exit some UN human rights treaties (e.g. on torture, children’s rights, discrimination). This is legally possible with notice but would cause severe reputational harm.

2. What the UK cannot escape

• Core UN human rights obligations (like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) have no withdrawal clause. UK is permanently bound.
• Customary international law (jus cogens)— absolute rules binding on all states:
  • No torture
  • No sending people to places where they face persecution or torture (“non-refoulement”)
  • No indefinite arbitrary detention

These apply regardless of treaty membership and cannot be derogated.

3. Practical Implication

Even if the UK denounced every treaty it legally could, it would still be bound by obligations that directly contradict mass deportation to unsafe countries or indefinite detention.

4. Bottom Line

Farage’s plan is not legally workable:

• It would require treaty exits unprecedented in modern UK history.
• Even after withdrawal, core human rights rules would still block parts of the scheme.
• Attempting to override these obligations would put the UK in the same category as states that openly defy international law, with heavy diplomatic and economic costs.